IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
December 20, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
KAMEKO MEJIA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F02702)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.
P. v. Mejia
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
After defendant Kameko Mejia pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm, imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was granted probation. His ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offense and the proceedings in the trial court.
In August 1995, defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and in March 2008 he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance for sale, both felonies. In April 2011, defendant was found in possession of a pistol grip shotgun in violation of Penal Code section 12021, subdvision (a)(1). Defendant pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm and the remaining count was dismissed. Imposition of judgment and sentence was suspended. Defendant was placed on five years formal probation, ordered to serve 180 days in county jail and various fines and fees were imposed. Defendant appeals, but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. DUARTE , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.